When a university announces a decision, stakeholders respond not only to what has been decided but to how it has been said. A single word can signal openness or defensiveness. A single sentence can invite confidence or raise doubt.

Language Does Things

A long tradition in linguistics reminds us that language does not merely describe the world; it acts within it. When an institution apologises, promises, announces or declines, it performs an action that commits it to something (Austin, 1962). Halliday’s (1978) view of language as a social semiotic adds that every text does several things at once: it conveys content, builds a relationship with its reader and organises meaning in a particular way.

For corporate communication, this means every statement carries three messages. It tells stakeholders what is happening. It positions the institution in relation to them. And through its structure and emphasis, it signals what the institution considers important. Stakeholders read all three, often without being aware that they do.

Word Choice and Agency

Sample Expressions

Some of the most consequential linguistic decisions are also the smallest. Consider the difference between “mistakes were made” and “we made a mistake”. Both acknowledge an error, but only the second tells the reader who is responsible. Linguists describe this as agency: whether a sentence makes clear who did what.

Passive constructions and nominalisations, which turn actions into abstract nouns, can quietly remove the actor from view. “A revision of fees has been undertaken” is grammatically sound, yet it leaves readers asking who decided, why, and what it means for them. Critical discourse analysts have long observed that such choices shape how responsibility is perceived (Fairclough, 1992). Readers may not name the grammar, but they sense its effect: a statement that hides its agent can feel evasive, even when that was never the intention.

The passive voice has legitimate uses, for instance when the actor is unknown or genuinely unimportant. The question is whether a construction is being used to inform or to obscure. Euphemism raises the same question. Terms such as “rightsizing” or “operational realignment” may soften difficult news for the writer, but they often sharpen scepticism in the reader. Precise, humane language usually earns more credibility than language designed to cushion.

Framing: What the Reader Is Invited to See

Two different ways to frame

Framing concerns what a message selects and makes prominent. Entman (1993) described framing as highlighting certain aspects of a situation so as to promote a particular definition of the problem, its causes, a moral evaluation and a remedy. Tversky and Kahneman (1981) showed that logically equivalent options, described in terms of gains or of losses, lead people to different decisions.

For institutions, framing appears in everyday choices. A policy change can be framed as a restriction or as a safeguard; a delay as a setback or as time taken to get something right. Neither frame is inherently wrong. What matters is that the frame is honest and consistent with what stakeholders experience. When a frame drifts too far from what people see on the ground, it weakens credibility rather than building it.

Framing also positions the audience. A message that frames students as customers invites a transactional relationship; one that frames them as members of an academic community invites partnership. Repeated over time, these frames shape how stakeholders understand their relationship with the institution.

Politeness, Face and Culture

Politeness theory offers communicators a valuable lens. Building on Goffman’s (1967) notion of face, the public self-image people wish to maintain, Brown and Levinson (1987) showed how speakers use linguistic strategies to reduce threats to that image. Requests, refusals, corrections and bad news are all potentially face-threatening, and the way they are phrased influences whether a relationship is strengthened or strained.

Institutions face the same challenge at scale. A reminder to submit documents can respect the reader’s autonomy or imply carelessness. A letter declining an application can acknowledge the applicant’s effort or overlook it. Small markers, such as thanking readers, explaining reasons and offering a next step, protect the dignity of people receiving difficult messages.

In Malaysia, politeness carries particular cultural depth. The value of budi bahasa, courtesy expressed through considerate and refined language, remains deeply held, and the proverb bahasa menunjukkan bangsa reminds us that language reflects character. Malaysian institutions also communicate across Malay, English, Chinese, Tamil and many other language communities, each with its own expectations of directness, deference and formality. A message that reads as courteous in one language may read as indirect, or even evasive, in another. Multilingual awareness is therefore not an optional refinement; it is part of communicating responsibly.

Clarity as a Form of Respect

Clarity is sometimes treated as a matter of style. It is better understood as a matter of respect. Dense sentences, unexplained acronyms and administrative jargon shift the work of interpretation onto the reader. For a parent reading a fee notice, an international student following a visa requirement or a community member reading about new research, that burden can quickly turn into frustration.

Plain language does not mean simplistic language. It means putting the main point first, choosing familiar words where they serve the purpose, keeping sentences manageable and stating clearly what readers need to do. In a multilingual community, clarity also supports the many readers who are working in their second or third language.

There is a balance to strike. Politeness that becomes too indirect can obscure the very information a reader needs. The most effective institutional messages are both courteous and clear: they soften the relationship, never the facts.

Tone and Institutional Voice

Tone is the emotional colouring of a message; institutional voice is the recognisable personality that emerges across many messages. Stakeholders form impressions of an institution not from any single text but from the accumulated pattern of how it speaks: in media statements, emails, social media replies, signage and speeches.

When tone is inconsistent, warm in a celebratory post yet cold and procedural when something goes wrong, audiences notice the contrast. Crisis communication research suggests that responses matched to the situation, including genuine expressions of concern where they are warranted, help protect reputation (Coombs, 2007). A caring tone that appears only in good times can seem performative.

This matters even more in the age of generative AI. As more institutional text is drafted with AI assistance, there is a risk of fluent but generic prose that sounds like everyone and no one. A distinctive, human voice, grounded in the university’s values and shaped by careful editorial judgement, becomes a quiet signal of authenticity.

Five Linguistic Practices for Communicators

What might this mean in daily practice? Five habits stand out.

Five Linguistics Practices

1. Make agency visible. When the institution has made a decision, say so. Use “we” where responsibility belongs to the institution, and keep the passive voice for cases where the actor is genuinely unknown or unimportant.
2. Check the frame. Before publishing, ask what the message makes prominent, what it leaves out, and whether stakeholders would recognise it as a fair account of their experience.
3. Protect face in difficult messages. Explain reasons, acknowledge the reader’s position and offer a clear next step, especially in refusals, reminders and announcements of change.
4. Lead with clarity. Put the key information first, explain specialist terms and, for important messages, test drafts with readers from different language backgrounds.
5. Cultivate a consistent voice. Develop shared guidance on tone and terminology across faculties and offices, so that stakeholders meet one recognisable institution rather than many disconnected ones.

Every Word, Every Day

Reputation is often discussed in terms of large moments: a ranking announced, a crisis handled, a partnership signed. Yet much of it is built in smaller ones: the tone of a reply to a worried parent, the clarity of an email to new students, the word chosen to describe a difficult change. Each is a small linguistic decision. Together, they form the voice through which stakeholders come to know, and to trust, an institution.

For communicators, this is both a responsibility and an opportunity. Attending carefully to language is not about polish for its own sake. It is about ensuring that what an institution says faithfully reflects who it is and what it intends to do. Every word matters, because somewhere, someone is reading it closely.

Author

Assoc. Prof. Dr Farhana Diana Deris serves as Director of the Corporate Communications Centre at the Office of Strategy and Global Eminence, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). She is also a Senior Lecturer at the Language Academy, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities. Trained in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) and grounded in applied linguistics, her work sits at the intersection of language, culture and global engagement. She is particularly interested in how storytelling and ethical communication can build trust and strengthen intercultural understanding in education and society. Her research explores technology-enhanced language learning, multilingualism in tourism communities and the internationalisation of higher education. She is actively involved in professional networks such as NEAS Quality Assurance in Education and Training, AsiaTEFL and the Malaysian English Language Teaching Association.